An l/c we have states under additional conditions "Part Load Acceptable" - I accept that this clause needs clarifying, but in consideration of this clause would you accept a B/L stating "cargo must not be released without presentation of B/L xxxxxx and B/L xxxx simultaneously" is both B/L's were presented under different L/C's, despite ISBP 114
If not acceptable what kind of clause would you expect the L/C to have to allow the B/L to show the above clause
Appreciate your views.
B/L Clause
-
JudithAutié
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:20 pm
B/L Clause
I would not accept those "linked" B/Ls since para 114 clearly states that only if all the B/Ls are presented in one single presentation under the same L/C would that be acceptable.
You are right in saying that the "part cargo" authorisation needs clarification. I could give several possible interpretations to that.
As to what would be needed to enable presentation of "linked" B/Ls under separate credits and/or separate utilisations, how about :
Presentation of B/Ls indicating that goods will not be delivered unless one or more other B/Ls are presented, is acceptable.
Long and windy, I agree, but less subject to many different interpretations I hope.
Regards
Judith
You are right in saying that the "part cargo" authorisation needs clarification. I could give several possible interpretations to that.
As to what would be needed to enable presentation of "linked" B/Ls under separate credits and/or separate utilisations, how about :
Presentation of B/Ls indicating that goods will not be delivered unless one or more other B/Ls are presented, is acceptable.
Long and windy, I agree, but less subject to many different interpretations I hope.
Regards
Judith
-
AsifMahmoodButt
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
B/L Clause
Hai Judith,
I am totally agreed with you as it is the main crux of transport document under art 20 of UCP 600 that full set to be presented.
In my meek opinion i may ignore such vague wordings in doc credits straightaway or i may revert to the issuing bank for such clarifications depending upon my bank's risk appetite, their policy, practices and norms of that particular region and most important the role in doc credit process; Since the responsibilities of advising banks and confirming banks in scrutinizing and checking the acceptability and viability of such terms/conditions (clauses) are obviously different.
Aamir
I am totally agreed with you as it is the main crux of transport document under art 20 of UCP 600 that full set to be presented.
In my meek opinion i may ignore such vague wordings in doc credits straightaway or i may revert to the issuing bank for such clarifications depending upon my bank's risk appetite, their policy, practices and norms of that particular region and most important the role in doc credit process; Since the responsibilities of advising banks and confirming banks in scrutinizing and checking the acceptability and viability of such terms/conditions (clauses) are obviously different.
Aamir
B/L Clause
many thanks for your replies.